So, which is it?  We're trying to decide what forum we want visitors and potential newbies to see initially.  Once they are in, they can decide which forum skin they want to use but what forum should we use?  The current default (the flashy, new one) or the "Core" (the traditional one we used before the forum change)?

I like the new layout, but it needs a bit of formatting work.  Some of the graphics overlap and it makes it look a bit disjointed.

core

I prefer the old one. The layout is clearer/cleaner.

If enough people vote for Core, will we change it back?

 

Back to the core, easier to read and see. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Warm nuzzles and bear hugz.

 

Jim S.

i like the original one - all the formatting is screwed up on my side with the new one

I like the new one - it "softens" up the boards.  No formatting issues here.

If enough people vote for Core, will we change it back?

 

Perhaps.  We'll see more feedback first!

Come on people - vote for the NEW one!!!  I am going to have to make some campaign buttons.

They are both fine to me.

The new design, by far. Less clunky, cleaner lines, aesthetically it is more pleasing.

I went with the new one, nothing wrong with a cleaner more modern look. Plus the quotes look awesome and you can actually read them as opposed to the tiny blocky letters with the old layout.

I went with the new one, nothing wrong with a cleaner more modern look. Plus the quotes look awesome and you can actually read them as opposed to the tiny blocky letters with the old layout.

 

Test

Old Skool all the way (I've been too busy to even try to get used to the new one).

I went with the new one, nothing wrong with a cleaner more modern look. Plus the quotes look awesome and you can actually read them as opposed to the tiny blocky letters with the old layout.

 

I think by cleaner you mean more sleek? I don't think it's cleaner. I think it makes the forum look a little more cluttered. Too many overlays. The way I always saw it - this forum is pretty conservative compared to most, in terms of how its organized and regulated. The simplicity of the old layout matches that conservative tone imo. Just like Facebook is more conservative and simplistic than Myspace.

Now that the formatting issues have been fixed, I prefer the new one, for the reasons mentioned above... As long as it's available as an option, I don't have a strong preference as to which one is the default.

I went with the new one, nothing wrong with a cleaner more modern look. Plus the quotes look awesome and you can actually read them as opposed to the tiny blocky letters with the old layout.

 

I think by cleaner you mean more sleek? I don't think it's cleaner. I think it makes the forum look a little more cluttered. Too many overlays. The way I always saw it - this forum is pretty conservative compared to most, in terms of how its organized and regulated. The simplicity of the old layout matches that conservative tone imo. Just like Facebook is more conservative and simplistic than Myspace.

 

Nothing really moved in terms of functionality. It's still there, in the same location, but updated with a new stylesheet.

Personally, as an IE 6 user (and do NOT give me that lecture about upgrading to IE 7 or 8 or "why don't you use Firefox, Opera, Safari, *Insert trendy browser here*" or some crap), it's been frustrating using both the new Default and Core.

From a technical standpoint, IE 6 is not supported by any major forum developer. SMF, that created this forum software, is no longer compatible with IE 6 because IE 6 doesn't fully support CSS2 and doesn't fully implement Javascript properly for dynamic interactions (think AJAX). IE 8 is more standards compliant, but it even doesn't fully support CSS2 (so frustrating when you develop web-sites for a living).

I went with the new one, nothing wrong with a cleaner more modern look. Plus the quotes look awesome and you can actually read them as opposed to the tiny blocky letters with the old layout.

 

I think by cleaner you mean more sleek? I don't think it's cleaner. I think it makes the forum look a little more cluttered. Too many overlays. The way I always saw it - this forum is pretty conservative compared to most, in terms of how its organized and regulated. The simplicity of the old layout matches that conservative tone imo. Just like Facebook is more conservative and simplistic than Myspace.

 

Nothing really moved in terms of functionality. It's still there, in the same location, but updated with a new stylesheet.

 

I wasn't commenting on the functionality. I like simplicity when it comes to forums. Not all that hibbity-jibbity, gradient, overlay-with variations of the same color, stuff. I'm colorblind. I can barely tell the difference between the color of Coldayman's last post and your post.

 

The top of the page has too much gradient going on. At least fix that lol. It looks cheap and sloppy.

I've used Babylon for as long as I can remember - I like things clean and tidy.

From a technical standpoint, IE 6 is not supported by any major forum developer. SMF, that created this forum software, is no longer compatible with IE 6 because IE 6 doesn't fully support CSS2 and doesn't fully implement Javascript properly for dynamic interactions (think AJAX). IE 8 is more standards compliant, but it even doesn't fully support CSS2 (so frustrating when you develop web-sites for a living).

 

Hey, I'm in FULL support of bringing back the old forum if it means it can support all browsers!!!  And I never have had a problem with other forums (SSP, SSC, etc) and never with this one...UNTIL THIS NEW BRAINCHILD OF SMF!!!  It should be called SMH!!!

I like the old version better.  Within threads I don't mind the new version, but in the main section it's hard to tell what section has new posts, and it does feel more cluttered.

Another thing I would suggest if this layout were to stay:

 

Make the names of the original posters smaller.

 

I'm talking about when you go to "Show unread posts since last visit."  Or "Show new replies to your posts" and you see the stack of threads. Since the original poster's name is bold and fairly large, it stands out more than the thread title which is much more important than who started it. Just my couple of cents.

I've used Babylon for as long as I can remember - I like things clean and tidy.

 

Me too.

 

I prefer the old.

Compared to the prior version and the new incarnation, Babylon isn't just tidy, it's stripped down.

 

However, I'm speaking as someone who not only participates but as an Admin, has to be able to cut through threads to kill reprimand stupid f#cktards people who violate forum policies. Now - what I will say is that the forum should always be in a format that's compatible with the largest amount of users; not necessarily the newest software.

i like the shiny new toy

 

you people just hate change. you're like COAST.

Compared to the prior version and the new incarnation, Babylon isn't just tidy, it's stripped down.

 

However, I'm speaking as someone who not only participates but as an Admin, has to be able to cut through threads to kill reprimand stupid f#cktards people who violate forum policies. Now - what I will say is that the forum should always be in a format that's compatible with the largest amount of users; not necessarily the newest software.

 

I think that by providing other options -- templates, stylesheets, etc., that it will solve the issues people are complaining about now. Since I assume the forum software was also given an upgrade (I think it was just SMF 2.0, and now it is 2.0 RC2?), the kinks need to be worked out. I think holding a wait-and-see approach rather to see the older templates revised to remove any lingering issues would be best at this point.

I much prefer the old look and feel.  Some of it is undoubtedly because I got used to it, but something about the new look feels like it's straining my eyes more.  It seems that the information you want most of the time doesn't stick out, and some information you rarely will want stick out too much.  It slows down the user's experience from the mind's perspective.  I think the colors are beautiful, but some of the font sizes and styles (bold, etc.) need to be modified to make it more usable.  The bold thread started on the unread posts page is a perfect example.  That information is one of the least useful bits on the row, and surely far less useful than the thread name.  It should not be bold, small, and possibly even a lighter color (gray) so it is there in the rare case you want to see it, and out of your way for the majority of the time when you don't care.

i like the shiny new toy

 

you people just hate change. you're like COAST.

 

Except COAST probably is compatible with IE 6 *HUMPH*

I suppose I like the look of the old but I now have horizontal scroll and that gets my vote. Was there a way to have that feature with the old forum?

I do like the new format.  It looks great in Firefox on my Mac.  I do have to admit there are a few glitches when I view it from work (IE6 on a PC).

My immediate reaction is that I like the old format better, but that might just be because it's what I've been used to.  The new forum design seems brighter (con) with lots of wasted space (obvious con).  I do like some of the accent color schemes though.

I like the new format!  I have spoken!

I liked the old. New format is too bright and different. It frightened me.

 

I'm with Coldayman. I'm on IE6, and I'm not budging. Core works better with IE6.

Personally, as an IE 6 user (and do NOT give me that lecture about upgrading to IE 7 or 8 or "why don't you use Firefox, Opera, Safari, *Insert trendy browser here*" or some crap), it's been frustrating using both the new Default and Core.

 

I liked the old. New format is too bright and different. It frightened me.

 

I'm with Coldayman. I'm on IE6, and I'm not budging. Core works better with IE6.

 

I can tell you from the realms of professional web development and design, if the entire world had to stick with IE 5.5 and 6, we'd be royally fucked in terms of advancement in design and interactivity. Security alone would make me upgrade in a heartbeat. Thankfully, the amount of users using IE 6 is about 15% at Xavier (down from 30% last year), with IE 8 and FF 3 being the top advances. It's really not difficult to upgrade -- actually, downright laughably easy, and it imports your bookmarks and all that other stuff in a matter of a few mouse clicks. There is really no reason not to upgrade.

I can also tell you that we use  IE6 at work and we're not allowed to a) upgrade b) download anything or c) use any other browser

New format is less clunky and boxy, more visually appealing, cleaner, and more modern-looking. 

 

Very nice job!

I can tell you from the realms of professional web development and design, if the entire world had to stick with IE 5.5 and 6, we'd be royally fucked in terms of advancement in design and interactivity. Security alone would make me upgrade in a heartbeat. Thankfully, the amount of users using IE 6 is about 15% at Xavier (down from 30% last year), with IE 8 and FF 3 being the top advances. It's really not difficult to upgrade -- actually, downright laughably easy, and it imports your bookmarks and all that other stuff in a matter of a few mouse clicks. There is really no reason not to upgrade.

 

Tell that to A). my job and B). my MusicMatch Jukebox at home.

I can tell you from the realms of professional web development and design, if the entire world had to stick with IE 5.5 and 6, we'd be royally f$&ked in terms of advancement in design and interactivity. Security alone would make me upgrade in a heartbeat. Thankfully, the amount of users using IE 6 is about 15% at Xavier (down from 30% last year), with IE 8 and FF 3 being the top advances. It's really not difficult to upgrade -- actually, downright laughably easy, and it imports your bookmarks and all that other stuff in a matter of a few mouse clicks. There is really no reason not to upgrade.

 

There are plenty of reasons.  Number one among them, the corporation you work at doesn't allow it.  My company (a Fortune 500 company) still ONLY supports IE 6 for our web applications.  Besides, I have IE 8 on my desktops at home and at work, IE 7 on my laptop, and I run IE 6 in a VM for testing (I already got reprimanded once a couple years ago for developing/testing in Firefox on my own machine and having something break in IE 6 after I passed it along), and (as much as it pains me to say it) IE 6 is by far the most stable.  IE 8 completely crashes about 20% of the time I close a tab.  If people are looking to upgrade, I suggest Firefox, Chrome, or Safari (I'm a WebKit fan myself), not an IE upgrade.  That said, IE 6 is still the standard in a similar way that Windows XP is.  Vista didn't offer enough new features, had enough problems, and wasn't enough widely adopted to become the "standard".  That's what I feel has happened with IE 7 and IE 8.  They seem to be rushed attempts to compete with Firefox.

Thank you for some real life, real world logic :).

yall a bunch of dorks

Lots of company's are jus switching to IE 7, we just switched in late october and were a media company!

I can also tell you that we use  IE6 at work and we're not allowed to a) upgrade b) download anything or c) use any other browser

 

Bingo.

 

BTW, was just checking out the site on my phone (using Windows Mobile 6.1), and with Core the layout of the posts is a little wonky. Peoples posts start to the right of their avatar and tend to just slightly go past the viewing screen. Still functional, but slightly out of whack. Plus quotes are larger than the original posts for some reason.

Lots of company's are jus switching to IE 7, we just switched in late october and were a media company!

 

Well I would HOPE a media company would switch to the "latest" (or semi-latest, in this case) browser.  But in the real world, things don't work out that easily!

yall a bunch of dorks

 

I know.

yall a bunch of dorks

 

Thank you, Athena.

Lots of company's are jus switching to IE 7, we just switched in late october and were a media company!

 

Well I would HOPE a media company would switch to the "latest" (or semi-latest, in this case) browser.  But in the real world, things don't work out that easily!

 

Yeah, but he said they "were a media company".  Maybe if they still were, they would have upgraded to IE 8 by now!  :)